4 ms·
While you may be offended by it, this article didn't invent that ratio. It's been around for years, as far as I can tell. I'm not certain where it came from, bu
by bearforcenine 9y ago
While you may be offended by it, this article didn't invent that ratio. It's been around for years, as far as I can tell. I'm not certain where it came from, but it's pretty normal to use grams per pound when discussing protein intake in the US.
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt's normal because macronutrient content is usually reported in grams, and people tend to track their own weight in US customary units; grams per pound is the measure which respects the existing conventions in both relevant domains.
- Jedd 9y agoI appreciate the article didn't invent this ratio -- though this doesn't excuse the behaviour. Everyone, whenever they communicate, has the opportunity to improve things. I'd argue it would be better described as 1 gram protein to 500gm (half a kilo) of body mass. That's actually a ratio, in the sense it can then be written simply as 1:500. You could translate that to US imperial as the ratio 0.032:16 -- assuming ounces all the way down, of course. Convenient! Microbloits to the parsec, football fields to the ocean, grams to the pound -- these are all just whacky to most people.
- tinym 9y agoPeople here know offhand what they weigh in pounds, and the packaging on food lists macronutrient content in grams. The article could've listed g/kg as well, but for a US audience g/lb isn't particularly wacky.